Dean's "Re-Regulation" Of American Business - Page 5

realpolitic · November 21, 2003, 18:08

Gee, maybe he'd make it hard for companies like Enron & WorldCon to scam elderly couples out of their retirement money. Maybe we won't be hiring police trainers to work in Iraq for $400,000/year. Imagine...

You cons maybe happy that Cheney recertified our nukes. It will save money until we have another TMI or Chernobyl. While we're at it, maybe AS would like to deregulate the HazMat trucks in America. That would also save money, until one explodes, or irradates a city.

Berzerker · November 21, 2003, 18:25

Quote:

While you maybe literally right, in a way, that doesn't mean that the FDA is a bad thing.

I don't have a problem with the FDA inspecting food (as long as the Constitution is amended

) but it's policing powers regarding drugs should be removed. This is the agency that insists marijuana has no medicinal properties after all, so it's already a political creature. All drugs should be available to people and we should be free to decide what to use with our doc's advice of course. And people who are worried about the efficacy of an unproven drug can wait for the FDA to give it's stamp of approval and those who literally can't afford to wait should be allowed to take the risk. It's their life on the line, not the FDA's. But what I want ain't gonna happen, the politicians will tell us what we can use and when while telling us how free we are.

We don't have an exact number, but it's safe to say the FDA has killed at least a couple million people and I seriously doubt it has saved more than that although it's possible.

realpolitic · November 21, 2003, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by Berzerker

I don't have a problem with the FDA inspecting food (as long as the Constitution is amended

) but it's policing powers regarding drugs should be removed.

Ever heard of thalidimide?

Berzerker · November 21, 2003, 18:53

Yes, and the FDA's ban on it didn't stop thousands of women from using it here in the US. Instead of trying to protect people from their own stupidity, think about all the people who've died because the FDA (you and it's supporters) didn't approve of drugs that would have saved their lives. If you do something really dumb, that isn't my fault. But if you're ill and I make it illegal for you to use the medicines available and you die, I am responsible.

Paraphrasing Ben Franklin, those who would sacrifice liberty for security will have neither.

Ned · November 21, 2003, 19:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo

Ooooh, Shrub made a speech!

That certainly is extremely substantial, and negates for instance when he helps to legitimize the Musharraf regime that treats poor farmers as slaves.

When the answer is painful, don't answer. Change the topic. Misdirect.

Ned · November 21, 2003, 19:27

Quote:

Originally posted by realpolitic
Gee, maybe he'd make it hard for companies like Enron & WorldCon to scam elderly couples out of their retirement money. Maybe we won't be hiring police trainers to work in Iraq for $400,000/year. Imagine...

You cons maybe happy that Cheney recertified our nukes. It will save money until we have another TMI or Chernobyl. While we're at it, maybe AS would like to deregulate the HazMat trucks in America. That would also save money, until one explodes, or irradates a city.

The new energy bill has a provision that is directed at Enron's market manipulation strategy that drove up prices in California. I think we all approve of such laws. But, as to scaming the elderly, what Enron did was illegal under the current law. Those responsible are being prosecuted. Their auditor, Arthur Anderson, was also prosecuted and convicted. They are virtually out of business.

So, what would Dean do differently from the above?

Ned · November 21, 2003, 19:34

As I have said before, Bush is the greatest anti-free trader in a very long time. The talks over a Western Hemisphere free trade zone broke down because Bush insised we keep agricultural tarrifs.

http://www.nytimes.com/2003/11/21/bu...21free.html?th

MrFun · November 21, 2003, 19:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
As I have said before,

Now I finally get what this thread is about -- repeating the same ideas over and over again with different words.

Ned · November 21, 2003, 19:58

Mr. Fun,

realpolitic · November 21, 2003, 20:36

Deregulation only makes the rich richer. Over the last 50 years, the cost of information has dropped by half every 18 months, there could be plenty for everyone. Instead, people in the Midwest stand in food lines for 5 hours, while the CEO of Tyco uses stockholder money to build an ice model of Michelangelo's David to pee Vodka for his birthday.

Another cost saving idea: Deregulate fire codes so skyscrapers will burn down from a static spark. That will give us a pretext to invade Syria.

Imran Siddiqui · November 21, 2003, 20:45

Quote:

Over the last 50 years, the cost of information has dropped by half every 18 months, there could be plenty for everyone. Instead, people in the Midwest stand in food lines for 5 hours, while the CEO of Tyco uses stockholder money to build an ice model of Michelangelo's David to pee Vodka for his birthday.

*looks at GDP/capita and median income in the last 50 years*

Um... yeah... people standing in food lines for 5 hours... sure. I don't think any sane individual would argue we are worse off today than we were 50 years ago.

Ramo · November 21, 2003, 20:54

Quote:

When the answer is painful, don't answer. Change the topic. Misdirect.

Describes your post perfectly. How ironic.

The answer isn't painful as Dean has clearly stated what he wants to do - include labor standards (i.e. no slavery) in free trade agreements. I was just making a comment on your belief that a speech condemning slavery (a revolutionary act... 150 years ago maybe) is a substantial action, while clearly, Shrub has done jack **** about trying to stop it.

Quote:

The talks over a Western Hemisphere free trade zone broke down because Bush insised we keep agricultural tarrifs.

Agricultural subsidies, Ned. Not tariffs.

TCO · November 21, 2003, 20:55

Quote:

Originally posted by realpolitic
Gee, maybe he'd make it hard for companies like Enron & WorldCon to scam elderly couples out of their retirement money. Maybe we won't be hiring police trainers to work in Iraq for $400,000/year. Imagine...

You cons maybe happy that Cheney recertified our nukes. It will save money until we have another TMI or Chernobyl. While we're at it, maybe AS would like to deregulate the HazMat trucks in America. That would also save money, until one explodes, or irradates a city.

or make it hard for Rubin's buddies at Goldman to cheat investors.

Ramo · November 21, 2003, 21:07

Quote:

He is still getting lots of union and fatcat and trial lawyer dollars. They have set up soft money fronts to spend the stuff. Soros gave 10 million.

Not that much. The average campaign contribution is IIRC, around $70.

MrFun · November 21, 2003, 21:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Mr. Fun,

My thoughts exactly -- with this thread.

Ned · November 21, 2003, 21:57

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo
The answer isn't painful as Dean has clearly stated what he wants to do - include labor standards (i.e. no slavery) in free trade agreements. I was just making a comment on your belief that a speech condemning slavery (a revolutionary act... 150 years ago maybe) is a substantial action, while clearly, Shrub has done jack **** about trying to stop it.

So this is how the left views slavery? Just as low-cost competition?

Labor laws and treaties will do nothing about female slavery for prostitution.

As to Bush, he has called forcefully in the UN for slavery's elimination as an abomination. Narry a Democrat or anyone on the left has joined in this call AFAIK.

The left exhibits once again it moral bankruptcy.

And, oh, Ramo. I heard a story the other day that some Islamic cleric said that slavery was part of Islam, part of Jihad.

Any comment?

Adam Smith · November 22, 2003, 00:24

Quote:

Originally posted by realpolitic
While we're at it, maybe AS would like to deregulate the HazMat trucks in America. That would also save money, until one explodes, or irradates a city.

Hazmat has its own set of issues, so please don't try putting words in my mouth. If a hazmat trucker has a sufficiently bad accident, he goes bankrupt and avoids paying for the damage he caused. He therefore has insufficient incentive to operate safely, and some form of regulation is required.

Ramo · November 22, 2003, 01:51

Quote:

So this is how the left views slavery? Just as low-cost competition?

That view is not implied from such policies. Most on the real left who advocate such policies are thinking on the part of the oppressed, and wish to use them to pressure other countries into protecting the liberty of labor instead of dismantling their welfare states. It's true that the view is representative of part of the, but it's primarily the more conservative, nationalistic elements that support them.

And it's certainly better how the right views slavery: a good thing.

Quote:

Labor laws and treaties will do nothing about female slavery for prostitution.

Labor laws are intended to prevent slavery. That's what they do; protect the liberteis of workers. Including female slavery for prostitution.

Quote:

As to Bush, he has called forcefully in the UN for slavery's elimination as an abomination. Narry a Democrat or anyone on the left has joined in this call AFAIK.

Because, Shrub isn't really doing anything but irrelevent PR. Where are the associated policy changes? It's meaningless blather.

Quote:

The left exhibits once again it moral bankruptcy.

And apparantly the right exhibits once again its idiocy.

Quote:

And, oh, Ramo. I heard a story the other day that some Islamic cleric said that slavery was part of Islam, part of Jihad.

Any comment?

And oh Ned, I heard a story the other day that some Christian preacher said that duty to bomb abortion clinics is party of Christianity, part of defending the faith.

Any comment?

And I'd be interested in seeing that exact quote, since it looks like made up bullshit to me. What does slavery have to do with jihad?

And if you didn't get the message, crazy people say crazy things all the time. That doesn't mean they're representative of everyone who claim the same religion. And what does this have to do with Dean anyways?

TCO · November 22, 2003, 10:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Ramo

Not that much. The average campaign contribution is IIRC, around $70.

Get a clue.

The funds I'm referring to are soft, very soft, money. The average donor size has nothing to do with what I'm talking about. There are several large funds not explicitly associated with the Democratic party, but for practical purposes dedicated to that cause. They have sprung up just this year to get around campaing finacne reform. This was a well-reported story. Get with the picture.

HershOstropoler · November 22, 2003, 10:59

Another hilarious thread. But there's one thing I wonder about:

Quote:

Originally posted by Adam Smith

One side effect is that regs like this freeze technology. For example, US railroad signal boxes use vacuum tubes adn relays, because it would literally take an Act of Congress to allow the use of integrated circuits.

Why would anyone mandate a specific technology? Is there no best available technology standard in railroad safety regulation?

TCO · November 22, 2003, 11:02

Best available has problems too. Look at FDA GMP wrt pharma factories. The vendors love it. Bar keeps moving further and further.

HershOstropoler · November 22, 2003, 11:24

BAT is moving by definition. Makes sense if you don't want to rely on specific limits. But requiring sepcific technology is a bit odd.

Ned · November 22, 2003, 16:14

Ramo, The right favor's slavery? The religious right is the party that ended it in England and the United States. Recall that it is you Democrats that were the party of slavery, for slavery and upon slavery. You have never done anything meaningful to stop it. Even today, you keep the black man is a new form of separate but equal called the welfare state where they can stay in their ghetto permanetly, supported by welfare.

Az · November 22, 2003, 16:18

Yes Ramo, all of you damn democrats!

Kidicious · November 22, 2003, 16:24

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned
Ramo, The right favor's slavery? The religious right is the party that ended it in England and the United States. Recall that it is you Democrats that were the party of slavery, for slavery and upon slavery. You have never done anything meaningful to stop it. Even today, you keep the black man is a new form of separate but equal called the welfare state where they can stay in their ghetto permanetly, supported by welfare.

Those Democrats were not liberals. Your problem is that you still think the Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Lincoln was a liberal, not a conservative. Learn some history.

TCO · November 22, 2003, 16:48

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler
BAT is moving by definition. Makes sense if you don't want to rely on specific limits. But requiring sepcific technology is a bit odd.

Yes...of course that is the benefit. What I am saying is that I have been in that field and things can get goldplated and overkill.

HershOstropoler · November 22, 2003, 16:51

Depends on whether "available" includes an economic criterion. It usually does.

Adam Smith · November 22, 2003, 17:05

Quote:

Originally posted by HershOstropoler Why would anyone mandate a specific technology? Is there no best available technology standard in railroad safety regulation?

There is no "best available", and no "subject to cost" criterion. Its just "use this specific technology", which was state of the art at the time the regs were written in the late 60's. The reason might have been that railroads were viewed as a mature industry, not likely to experience technical change.

Another example of technology frozen in place is train brakes. Since 1869 brakes have been powered by compressed air, which is what the regs allow. There are now electronically activated brakes, which activate much quicker and stop trains sooner. Again, it will literally take and Act of Congress to allow these into use.

Ned · November 22, 2003, 17:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Kidicious

Those Democrats were not liberals. Your problem is that you still think the Republicans are the party of Lincoln. Lincoln was a liberal, not a conservative. Learn some history.

Lincoln was primarily a pro-business Whig. And yes, he was for radical change. But in terms of values, there is no difference at all between the party of Lincoln and the Republican Party today. It is the home of pro-business types and the religious, just as it was then.

Liberalism once was a force for free trade. Today it seems to be a force for protectionism, socialism and hate.

Kidicious · November 22, 2003, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by Ned

Lincoln was primarily a pro-business Whig. And yes, he was for radical change. But in terms of values, there is no difference at all between the party of Lincoln and the Republican Party today.

I leave the burden of proof to you since it is common knowledge that this isn't true.